Rare common ground found in landmarking debate

While critics charged that aggressive landmarking is stifling the city's economy and backers say that New Yorkers and tourists alike support more landmarks, both sides agreed that the process of granting protected status is in dire need of reform.

Major players on both sides of the long-running debate over the future of landmarking in New York City repeatedly butted heads at a forum Tuesday morning, but on one thing they surprisingly agreed: The landmarking process itself is in sore need of reform and improvement.

For decades the city's development community has complained about a range of issues regarding the city Landmarks Preservation Commission's operations, including an extreme lack of certainty about time frames of the decision-making process—some items have been under consideration for decades—as well as the commission's criteria for either designating a building or a district as historic. But since the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has focused on increased housing development—particularly the affordable variety—that process has come under heightened scrutiny. It comes as the mayor's choice to chair the commission, Meenakshi Srinivan, is about to take over the commission, and perhaps suggest changes of her own.

"I agree there is room for discussion, and room for an improved landmarks process," said Peg Breen, president of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, speaking on a panel at a breakfast forum sponsored by Crain's at the New York Athletic Club Tuesday. "I hope that this discussion continues."

Grand Central Terminal is an example of a New York City landmark.Photo: Buck Ennis

Seated next to Ms. Breen, Steven Spinola, president of the powerful Real Estate Board of New York, was quick to note a rare patch of common ground between the two organizations.

"I'm glad that everybody seems to agree there is room for improvement in the process," he said.

But other than a common desire to make some fixes to the commission, including possibly paying its volunteer commissioners in order to bring a higher degree of professionalism, the forum was largely dominated by drastically different viewpoints.

Ms. Breen and the Municipal Art Society's Ronda Wist argued that far from hindering the city's economic advancement, landmarking is a plus not just for drawing tourists but also new hi-tech firms. Both noted that older, quirky buildings not modern glass-box office buildings are in high demand from young tech companies and their employees.

On the other side, Mr. Spinola along with Kenneth Jackson, a long-time professor of New York history and social science at Columbia University, as well as Nikolai Fedak, founder and editor of New York YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard), argued that landmarking can stifle development and economic growth. Mr. Spinola also noted a recent REBNY-commissioned study that concluded that aggressive landmarking was hurting housing development. Among other things, that report found that in the last decade in Manhattan a total of just five units of affordable housing had been constructed in landmarked districts.

Mr. Fedak argued that the priority had to be on the people living and working in the city. "Do buildings make up the character of a neighborhood, or do people?" he asked, arguing that human capital is a crucial resource for the city, and it needs room to grow.

And when it comes to making choices that are best for the environment, Mr. Jackson noted that increasing density and erecting taller, bigger buildings is the greenest way forward. In contrast, Ms. Wist countered by stressing that many new companies at the cutting edge of the city's economy prefer to be in buildings with special character, ones where people can actually open their windows.

Mr. Spinola, for his part, claimed that replacing the windows can cost three times as much when passing muster with the Landmarks Preservation Commission is necessary.

REBNY, Landmarks Conservancy spar over midtown east

Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, and Peg Breen, president of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, have a heated discussion about the failed midtown east rezoning plan and the role landmarking played in the process.

Does landmarking make NYC too expensive?

At a recent Crain's forum, a panel of experts discussed whether landmarking drives up rents in desirable neighborhoods and deters young people from moving to the city.

Add a Comment

Please leave a comment

We welcome your thoughtful comments. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Crain's New York Business. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification. Comments may be used in the print edition at editorial discretion.